The problem with governments...

Sava · March 18, 2003, 09:34

Democracies, in particular....

Bear with me here. When you build a house, you hire an architect to design it... why? because architects are the most qualified to design houses. You also hire contractors, why? because they are the most qualified to build houses. When you buy stocks, some people hire a broker... why? because they are the most qualified to trade stocks and make money.

Yet, when it comes to electing leaders to solve some of the biggest problems... we elect politicians. This is baffling to me. You'd think we'd choose the best leaders for the positions, based on their qualifications. But no... instead, we get dishonest, corrupt politicians.

What can we do to reform our Democracy so that politics only applies to political issues. For instance... look at the budget for the US. The guy that has the final say is the biggest politician out there. It doesn't matter if it's Bush or Clinton... there hasn't been one president (that I can think of) who was qualified to act as the nation's accountant.

Whether it's Republicans or Democrats, the guy in office runs his own agenda, or his party's agenda; with the full resources of the American people. There has to be a way we can reform the system.

Suggestions: Spread the responsibilities of the President out and delegate them to people who are qualified to do the job. Ideally, the President should be the person that "executes" the law and the will of the people. But instead, the President creates policy. The seperation of powers has been blurred and I think it's time to fix the system.

Comments, suggestions?

Inverse Icarus · March 18, 2003, 10:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Yet, when it comes to electing leaders to solve some of the biggest problems... we elect politicians. This is baffling to me. You'd think we'd choose the best leaders for the positions, based on their qualifications. But no... instead, we get dishonest, corrupt politicians.

they're good at what they do, decieving the public. thats why they get elected.

eh, i guess the president making policy is a tad off from the way it was written. hash out a completed proposal and leave it on my desk by tomorrow morning.

Arrian · March 18, 2003, 11:26

Generally speaking, the people who seek power are the last it should be given to. On the other hand, how else are we going to handle it?

This is why I generally favor a weaker government... they can do less damage.

-Arrian

Zkribbler · March 18, 2003, 11:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
What can we do to reform our Democracy so that politics only applies to political issues.

First, we need to do everything we can to get the big money (i.e. special interest groups) out of politics.

The Supreme Court needs to reverse its silly ruling that donating money is political "speech" and therefore is under strict scrutiny when it comes to being regulated.

We need to limit the persons who can donate to political campaigns to registered voters--no corporations, no unions, no PACs, no foreign nations.

Television stations--which are given exclusive licenses to use the public airways--must give free time to persons who are campaigning for public office.

Then maybe we can start electing qualified people into office rather than those politicians who raise huge warchests by selling out to every special interest in sight except the American public.

Ozz · March 18, 2003, 11:57

Dump the vote and lottery pick your representatives
from the voting population. You'd kill corruption and
get a more truly representative government.
(based on math)

Democracy is not necessary voting, The ancient Athenian
citizen would likely serve two terms of office in their lifes.

Arrian · March 18, 2003, 12:10

Ozz,

So, make it like Jury Duty? One of my best friends advocated the same thing recently, and I questioned his sanity.

Such a government might be more representative, but think about what that really means. It means President Homer Simpson. Before you say "hey, that's not so bad" consider that this isn't a cartoon.

-Arrian

yavoon · March 18, 2003, 12:28

there's a reason its a representative democracy. we elect ppl we trust to lead the country. not patsies. the idea being that they can be much more informed than us seeing as we have jobs and lives.

Ozz · March 18, 2003, 12:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Ozz,

So, make it like Jury Duty? One of my best friends advocated the same thing recently, and I questioned his sanity.

Such a government might be more representative, but think about what that really means. It means President Homer Simpson. Before you say "hey, that's not so bad" consider that this isn't a cartoon.

-Arrian

The line between genuis and madness...

Consider your current president, Homer ain't that bad
looking and thats real life.

No it does'nt, it means Representive Homer Simpson, and if Homer Simpson can't be a representive, then he shouldn't be taxable. (Not taxation without representation) Homer would have to be elected by the
representatives to be President. (which would be more
like Prime Minister)

How many representatives does the US have 400 for each house. of of say 800 you'd get a representative
slice of the US, Genuises and morons both.

How would you deal with the position of congressman
if you were picked, I bet a lot of people would work
harder at it than anything else in their lives.

red_jon · March 18, 2003, 12:50

I've been rapidly losing faith in democracy recently - the people are stupid and have no idea what they really want, yet when they make a clear demonstration against something, the government ignores them. Not that any of the alternatives we've seen are any better.

The only workable alternative I can think of would be a truly meritocratic system, but how would that work? And of course you'd be left with a disempowered lower rung of stupid people, but who cares about them?

Arrian · March 18, 2003, 12:51

Ok, so you're also arguing for a Parliamentary system to replace our Republican system.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think such a system would have difficulty doing anything. Therefore, I like it.

-Arrian

Sava · March 18, 2003, 12:52

good posts guys

Az · March 18, 2003, 12:53

Yeah, because we all know the government is evil.

Ozz · March 18, 2003, 12:56

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon
And of course you'd be left with a disempowered lower rung of stupid people, but who cares about them?

Good start, we'll disempower the homosexuals next.

red_jon · March 18, 2003, 13:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz

Good start, we'll disempower the homosexuals next.

Hey, disempowering the stupid is better than electing them as president.

Ba-dum-bum tish.

Az · March 18, 2003, 13:01

Of course, being gay is just as bad a quality as being stupid.

Sava · March 18, 2003, 13:05

Quote:

Of course, being gay is just as bad a quality as being stupid.

come on now, that's uncalled for

Ozz · March 18, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, so you're also arguing for a Parliamentary system to replace our Republican system.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think such a system would have difficulty doing anything. Therefore, I like it.

-Arrian

If your going to have a titular leader, they would have
to be elected by the representatives (like a PM) or
you could lottery the position among the representatives and have a President (and maybe President H. Simpson). Or you could have an elected President and the senate and congress by lottery of voters.

If the goal is representative government, you can use
lottery methods rather than voting and actually get a
more representative government (way more women,
for example would be representatives just on the math)

Japher · March 18, 2003, 13:08

We could make a reality TV show where the winner gets to take the oath of office, and the we can follow him/her threw the term. We'll let America decide by calling in on a 800 number or, if the have text mssging, they can text their message. We will give them 24 hours to send in their vote, and widdle them down one by one. We can have them compete in mental and physical challenge, debate, perform domestic and foreign policy, and date really annoying people. In the final episode the final contestants will compete on in a serious of "stunt" like walking a tight rope, eating worms, and driving a car off the bridge...

We will call it: Who Wants To Be An American President In Order To Spread The Fear Factor For Survival... sponsered by Coke (of course)

Heck, and can't be any worse then watching Florida fudge another poll, we'll just let AT&T handle it.

Sava · March 18, 2003, 13:10

Japher!

Az · March 18, 2003, 13:11

Quote:

Democracy is not necessary voting, The ancient Athenian
citizen would likely serve two terms of office in their lifes.

The athenian "democracy", a chosen few commanding a horde of nameless, powerless slaves.

Ozz · March 18, 2003, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

The athenian "democracy", a chosen few commanding a horde of nameless, powerless slaves.

Not glorifing Athenian society, with their slaves and
metrics. Just trying to make the point democracy is not tried to voting, but representative government.

Ozz · March 18, 2003, 13:21

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon

Hey, disempowering the stupid is better than electing them as president.

Ba-dum-bum tish.

No taxation without representation.

Japher · March 18, 2003, 13:23

I agree with Ozz. Even Saddam was "elected" - no democracy. Similarly Alpha Oumar Konare was "elected" - model of democracy.

Arrian · March 18, 2003, 14:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
We could make a reality TV show where the winner gets to take the oath of office, and the we can follow him/her threw the term. We'll let America decide by calling in on a 800 number or, if the have text mssging, they can text their message. We will give them 24 hours to send in their vote, and widdle them down one by one. We can have them compete in mental and physical challenge, debate, perform domestic and foreign policy, and date really annoying people. In the final episode the final contestants will compete on in a serious of "stunt" like walking a tight rope, eating worms, and driving a car off the bridge...

We will call it: Who Wants To Be An American President In Order To Spread The Fear Factor For Survival... sponsered by Coke (of course)

Heck, and can't be any worse then watching Florida fudge another poll, we'll just let AT&T handle it.

*wipes tear from eye*

That was good, Japher.

-Arrian

Odin · March 18, 2003, 17:57

Even though Athens' voting requirements were tight, thet were no more tighter than in some US states early on. Of hhat I've read an Athenian could vote if they were all these things. (Thee requirements at the time of PM Pericles.):

Male
Owned land
Was born in the city-state

Athenians had a lottery because they feared corruption, and they belived everybody could hold at least some public office in thier lifetime.